LEE v. WAL-MART STORES EAST LP

Filing 16

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land on 11/13/2013 (jcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ANGIE J. LEE,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-305 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Angie J.
Lee’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 14) asking the Court
to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 11) dismissing her untimelyfiled action.

Motions for reconsideration shall only be filed

when “absolutely necessary” and

not

practice.”

“A motion for reconsideration

cannot be

M.D. Ga. R. 7.6.

“as a matter of routine

used to relitigate old matters,

raise argument or

present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment.”

Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lee, who is now represented by counsel, argues that the
Court

should

equitably

toll

the

statute

of

limitations

consider her untimely-filed complaint for two reasons.
she

argues

warrants

that

her

son’s

tolling

the

statute

health
of

created

a

limitations.

and

First,

hardship
Although

that
Lee

submitted additional documentation in support of this excuse,
the Court previously considered the same argument and rejected
it.

Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate for simply

rearguing previously rejected positions, and the Court declines
to do so here.
reconsidered.

Therefore, Lee’s hardship argument will not be
See Singleton v. Dep’t of Corrections, 323 F.

App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (finding no abuse
of

discretion

in

denying

a

motion

for

reconsideration

that

repeats previously raised arguments).
Lee does raise a new argument that she did not previously
assert.
deputy

She claims that she received erroneous advice from a
clerk

tolled.

and

thus

the

statute

of

limitations

should

be

It is clear that Lee allegedly received this advice

months before the Court made its decision to dismiss the action.
Lee fails to explain adequately why she did not present this
argument

or

Defendant’s
supporting

any
Motion

her

evidence
to

supporting

Dismiss.

dubious

“erroneous

Even

it
if

advice”

in

opposition

authority
excuse,

to

existed

the

would not consider it at this stage of the litigation.

Court
The

alleged evidence supporting this excuse existed when she filed
her response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and yet she did
not

mention

it.

Since

her

argument

is

not

based

on

new

evidence, it is not a proper basis for granting reconsideration.
See Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir.

2

1998) (“Motions for Reconsideration should not be used to raise
legal arguments which could and should have been made before the
judgment was issued.”).
Lee has failed to carry her burden in support of her Motion
for

Reconsideration.

She

seeks

mercy

rather

reconsideration based on recognized legal authority.

than

While the

Court may be personally sympathetic to her plight, it is bound
by the law.

And the law does not support reconsideration under

the circumstances presented here.

Accordingly, her motion (ECF

No. 14) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3